Talk:GameSpot

Conspiracy theory revert

The "conspiracy theory" claim was made by the Gamespot staff. The gaming community, as a whole, has reacted pretty negatively to what happened and doesn't really buy into their claims that it's just silly rumors. See the discussion below. It's worth including, considering the amount of press it's gotten. It's not UFO\New World Order type stuff. I actually included the "conspiracy theory" remark to keep the section balanced. Now I regret it if someone's going to take those words at face-value. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Robot

Someone put a "Wikipedia discourages Trivial sections" tag in this section for some reason. It clearly is not a "Trivia Section", mearly a section on something that happens to have trivia in its name. --DotDarkCloud 12:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Gamespot is known for giving biased reviews, and are a pro-360 website. This was proven by their poor review of Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, giving it a 7.5 when everyone else gave it 9+."

This is obvious vandalism, and I'm just going to go ahead and delete it.Laugh-O-Gram 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, lots of Fanboys vandalizing the page as of late. CraigP 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well it's not like they don't appear to be biased when they downplay games that aren't on the 360. But yes, it's vandalism and should be removed.Modem 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick search of the review archives on Gamespot proves you wrong. The score variance for Xbox360 appears identical to competitors. Are you still nursing a grudge over Ratchet and Clank? The 7.5 was only their opinion, and a variance in scoring is no identifier of bias.71.35.252.65 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Gerstmann

Recent edits adding that he was "fired" or "rumored" to have left under controversial situations, etc., have been removed because they were unsourced by reliable, third-party sources. Please be aware that blogs are not reliable sources, forums are not reliable sources, personal sites, etc, are not reliable sources. The biographies of living persons policy applies here, when alleging someone was fired from a job, so any information about the situation must be written neutrally, and be strongly cited by reliable sources, such as news articles. Ariel♥Gold 22:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

what about industry websites reporting it?

<a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/rumor-gamespots-editorial-director-fired-over-kane-and-lynch-rev/">Joystick with official statements from gamespot not denying eidos applied pressure</a>
<a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/gamespot-issues-short-comment-on-gerstmann-firing/"></a>
<a href="http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/30/1317259">still</a>
<a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/eidos-and-gamespot-forums-exploding-over-gerstmann-incident/">generating</a>
<a href="http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212394&page=43">significant</a>
<a href="http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=63876">discussion </a>
<a href="http://digg.com/gaming_news/Rumor_Gamespot_Editor_Fired_Over_Negative_Kane_Lynch_Review">throughout</a>
<a href="http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=40383">the</a>
<a href="http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8169&Itemid=2">online</a>
<a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/79445-Gamespot-Editor-Fired-Rumors-Say-Eidos-Did-It">gaming</a>
<a href="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=31120">community</a>,

Here's another one from Gamepolitics.com: http://gamepolitics.com/2007/12/01/did-gamespot-commit-brand-suicide-with-jeff-gerstmann-firing/ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And another: http://gamepolitics.com/2007/11/30/free-jeff-gerstmann/ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just let it alone. With such a fluid situation - with numerous emotions bubbling over - it's best to wait until the entire story can be told. Make a new Wiki entry if you want to discuss this, as GameSpot is far more than one editor's controversy and the rumors surrounding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.70.136 (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article from 1UP: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3164656 . Not sure how reliable this is since Ziff Davis is one of CNET's main competitors, but they're generally seen as pretty reputable I think. 129.199.159.36 06:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

From preceding article "The short of it, confirmed through our own sources: Gerstmann was fired for his negative review of Eidos Interactive's Kane & Lynch. But there's more to the story in which Gerstmann -- one of the site's leading editors for over a decade -- was terminated this week." 129.199.159.36 06:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Google News has more than 100 articles regarding the Gerstman case, including Ars Technica, Wired and The Guardian. This controversy is also the first mention of Gamespot in Norway's second biggest newspaper: http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2007/12/02/519948.html -- Seems quite notable. 88.91.84.35 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since this story has happened. So, "the story has been told." I added a section on it, with every statement being cited in a reliable source. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page from editing due to violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Before anything regarding the Gerstmann incident can be added, it must be sourced with reliable sources. Discuss the issue here and find reliable sources for any additions you wish to make. --- RockMFR 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An official CNet podcast discusses the situation:

http://reviews.cnet.com/8300-11455_7-10.html?tag=blogHed

that seems to be a fair enough source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blapblapblap (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I get unprotected

I didn't realize all the rules Wikipedia had to go through but I figured them out.

Can you unlock it for me, or at least change Tim Tracy's thing to: " Tim Tracy: Allegedly quit for unknown reasons (Ref the blog post) "

Thanks. - Woozie

And are people allowed to post information from blogs and forums if it's only rumors, and states that they're only rumors? Does joystiq, or kotaku count as reliable sources? - Woozie

Wikipedia, the place where conspiracies theories about cruise missiles cleverly disguised as planes using alien technology brought down the WTC get their own page, but where adding a footnote on a subject that has an entire industry in shambles is frowned upon. Tsk-tsk-tsk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.204.39 (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because blogs and forums are so reliable. Oh wait, they're not. Come back when the reasons for Gertsmann's firing are more than a rumor and printed in a source with fact-checking. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention we are dealing with a living person. We have to be sensitive of what is said about him or her.--BirdKr 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but those theories, are posted as theories, and not definitive facts. So as long as the rumors are stated as rumors what's the problem? They're like theories but on a smaller scale. - Woozie

Again, it relates to a living person. From Wikipedia's guideline, we have to be very conservative of what is said about the subject. As you said, it's a rumor. You wouldn't like it if a rumor went around that relates to you would you? Even though it's simply a rumor and explicitly known as rumor, you'd still be sensitive about it. If I recall, we don't post any rumors unless the subject of the article itself is about that rumor. Just wait until the fire is washed away with the smoke cleared. As of right now, the only fact is that he got fired, in which itself is not notable...since people get fired all the time. The reason/cause and its implications will probably make the event important for this article. As of now, we don't know for certain what those are. --BirdKr 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it would be a good idea to unprotect this article at the moment. There is a strong likelihood that this article will continue to be used to propagate speculation and unsourced information. If there is something specific that needs to be added to the article, discuss exactly what you want to be added with reliable sources to back it up. --- RockMFR 05:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, and me who thought I could get reliable information for my own children home project on wikipedia. But here's the one subject I can make a difference in, the subject where I work in, and I can't even make it to a foot note! http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/02/gerstmann-gate-sunday-morning-update/ see this link. You people make me sick - there is no truth to wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.204.39 (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's isn't supposed to have the "truth" as much as it's supposed to have verifiable information from reliable sources. A blog entry that references other blog entries and personal websites isn't at all reliable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing a draft of Gertsmann's dismissal

---

On November 30, 2007, Gamespot fired its Editorial Director Jeff Gerstmann. While this development was reported by video-game media and coummunity sources, many noted suspicions due to the nature of the dismissal. Most of the sources pointed out Gerstmann was fired shortly after his tepid review on Kane & Lynch was published, and subsequently the disappearance of Kane and Lynch ads and Gerstmann’s video review of the game as well.

Multiple gaming media outlets expressed concern of this incident, specifically on the rumor that Eidos, publisher of Kane & Lynch and advertiser for Gamespot, could have pressured Gamespot, an independent media company from Eidos, to fire one of its employees due to an unfavorable editorial of one of Eidos's products. Notably, Ziff Davis, parent company of 1UP.com (Gamespot's rival), held a protest outside Gamespot’s headquarters specifically on this concern.

CNET, Gamespot’s parent company, responded that it stands behind all editorials that are produced. CNET was unable to provide specific details of the incident due to privacy and policy issues. The initial statement was followed with another stating CNET does not “terminate employees based on external pressure from advertisers”. On December 4, 2007, Gamespot issued a statement on the incident quoting from Greg Brannan, CNET Networks Entertainment's vice president of programming:

"The accusations in the media that it has done so are unsubstantiated and untrue. Jeff's departure stemmed from internal reasons unrelated to any buyer of advertising on GameSpot"

In the week's edition of Gamespot's feature, Hotspot, multiple staff members addressed the incident and responded to numerous circumstances including the timing of the removal of the Kane & Lynch video review.

---

This is my initial draft so far. Feel free to comment or edit this draft. Remember that we're not lashing against anyone and that a LIVING PERSON is involved. --BirdKr 11:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs "reliable sources." But if we're going with that motto than all we can really do is say that Jeff Gerstmann was fired for unknown reasons, and Tim Tracy quit/was fired for unknown reasons. Which is already in the "personalities" section. I think we should probably wait until the end of this week, stuff normally doesn't happen over the weekends so we might see some stuff Dec 3rd - Dec 11th. --Woozie

I will be adding the sources once the draft is completed. I agree however, that we need to wait before we start updating the article. --BirdKr 14:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems WP:BLP compliant. There is no allegation of malpractise against any living individual - your text simply reports the existence of the rumours (as many major news organisations have done) without offering any opinion as to their truthfulness or otherwise. When we do unlock the page, we will need something about the whole Gerstamnn issue, and this text would fit the bill. Cynical 16:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Added citations. Will exactly expand as this incident develops. I also revised the 2nd paragraph for more clarity, but it seems a bit wordy. --BirdKr 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is semi-protected. Created a section about this with the current events tag--BirdKr 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Spectre, what makes a "section worthy" of being added into a Wikipedia article? There is almost no, if any, analysis of this event from me or other editors, hardly any POV aside from few mistakes and no original research. This event is notable enough that multiple gaming media outlets have been covering it with some current and former editors from other media outlets expressing concern about this. The situation isn't 100% clear, but that's why there's a "current event" tagged to it. --BirdKr 19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. They apply to companies too. The K&L thing is still a rumour until CNet/Gamespot/Eidos say otherwise. We also don't need one full section and two paragraphs over one reviewer getting fired. Will ^(talk) 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)'

Noted, thanks for the response. One tip though on edits, it's unnecessary to "express" your reason with "frak" and "crap", made me think as if you had some personal vendetta on this issue. --BirdKr 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a GameFAQs user. I'm just as annoyed about this as the regular gamer. But this is an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. At any rate, unless the case escalates to the courtroom, the only suitable place is the article on the reviewer. Will ^(talk) 19:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If reliable sources are covering, then we can include it, regardless of what CNet/Gamespot/Eidos say. -Chunky Rice 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. However, all news articles that imply that Gerstmann was fired as a result of the Kane & Lynch review fail Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, as they are all based on a RUMOUR. Will ^(talk) 19:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the articles from sources like 1up and IGN and other normally reliable sources are unusable - they are reporting not what they are say, but what is circulating in the gaming community and generally adding "we cannot confirm these rumors at this time", showing they are keeping themselves distant from the rumor but trying to perform non-biased, fact-checking reporting. IIRC, Kotaku is the one that had the initial rumor, so yes, that one story is not usable (or at least, as the only source to support it), but the "secondary source" coverage of what this rumor is, as long as they aren't stating that it is their rumor, is within the guidelines for WP:V. --MASEM 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We still can't use them to verify the rumour, though. The only thing we know for certain is that he was fired. Leave it at that. Will ^(talk) 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Chunky Rice, my problem here is the fact that the cause of the dismissal is still a rumor. The dismissal of an editor is hardly significant, but the rumors of a cause surrounding it COULD make it significant. Since the cause of this dismissal is still unknown or unconfirmed, the event itself is insignificant. Question is, should we still "report" about this incident, noting it's notable due to rumors? Significant because multiple credible reliable sources are reporting it even though the rumor itself is still unverified? As of right now, the issue has strong sources but a weak foundation: an unconfirmed reason.

WP:NOT#NEWS asks editors to take into consideration, especially in the cases of living people and companies, the long-term notability. Think "will people care or remember in a month? A year?". Will ^(talk) 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre, please try to respond in a calm manner. Your reasons are good, but has a poor impression due to the style you convey them.--BirdKr 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. I sometimes bold for emphasis if people ignore points, as I find that as rude as the shouting in the first place. Will ^(talk) 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We cannot report the rumor as fact, but we can certainly indicante that the rumor exists and is prevelant, based on reliable sources. For example, take a look at the article on Larry Craig. There are allegations and rumors about his sexuality. Because those rumors were picked up and reported on by reliable sources, we can include them in the article. -Chunky Rice 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The rumour is causing a great deal of controvesry. The fact that the editors was dismissed on unclear terms which is giving CNet HUGE backlash should be covered.--Scabloo 04:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the amount of backlash for numerous parties (Gamespot and CNet primarily) is worthy of being included. Mainstream news and Wikipedia include terms like "alleged" often when covering current events. Even though there is no citeable proof that Jeff was fired for his review at the request of Eidos, the backlash (flooding the boards, rating K&L one star, numerous critical articles) is something definite. --JDCMAN (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I would like for the section to be added, read this from WP:NOT#NEWS:

"Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article"

At the moment, the incident is huge due to a rumor that has been denied by both Gamespot and CNET. The only ammunition that verifies this rumor is based on blogs quoting unverified insiders within Gamespot. As for the Larry Craig comparison, that scandal led to a civil/criminal charge against him, the scandal has merit to be mentioned. This however, doesn't have concrete merit other than the fact that it's big news among the gaming community. I'm going to wait out until the end of this weekend to check whether this news is notable or not. --BirdKr 06:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This news is very notable to Gamespot . . . enough so, that they issued an official statement on the matter: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183603.html

it should be covered now, as events are unfolding . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.219.4 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what I said on Gerstmann's page: I'm wondering why we're protecting Eidos or Gamespot for what they've done. They have commited the biggest controversy in gaming journalism history and deserve to be called out on it. It's not a rumor anymore. Sites like Kotaku and GamePolitics are quoted as reliable sources in other articles, why do the rules not apply here? It's not a WP:BLP issue, because I can't find the part of that policy that says "We don't add factual info that might make major companies cry." Maybe we should add the fact that even though this is supposedly crying over spilt milk, CNET is launching an investigation into this incident? How about the people picketing? How about "Blackout Monday"? None of those things are very important though, but some things are, such as the fact that all Gamespot staff members have added ominous blog entries. But right, Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. ShadowUltra (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First, please be serious when you're trying to reason with us. Saying something like "We don't add factual info that might make major companies cry" isn't helping convey your argument and deep inside you know such statement is false. Second, we're not "protecting" Gamespot or Eidos, just trying to make sure the information is true. From what I've read, there has not been a single official statement nor anyone significant of this issue that confirmed the rumors. These reliable sources that claim to have "confirmed" them are citing "insiders" and anonymous sources. As for these "ominous blog entries" from Gamespot staff members, we can't determine the rumor is true simply because they are "ominous," that's original research. If you didn't know, we are not detectives, we do not pick up scattered information (Blackout Monday¹, people picketing², investigation³) and try to come to a conclusion. The fact is, this rumor has not been confirmed: reliable sources that claim to have confirmed it are using unverifiable sources to say so.

As for articles of other rumors and conspiracy, those articles are notable by them themselves. This rumor however, is not notable by itself. Such is the reason why this controversy does not have an entire article by itself. Had it not been for the notability of Gamespot, this controversy wouldn't be notable to begin with.

¹Just because there was information blackout does not confirm the rumor.

²Those people demonstrated over a rumor. Their display does in no way confirm the rumor.

³Please link to a source that says CNET is investigating this incident.

Although I feel there should be a section about this issue, the fact that this rumor is unconfirmed, not notable by itself, and the fact that Wikipedia does not mention gossip despite news coverage, makes me agree with the very few here that this issue should not be mentioned. --BirdKr (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I updated the draft, I'll clean it up tomorrow. I'm going to sleep. --BirdKr (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot confirms they are launching an official investigation here. ShadowUltra (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Read it carefully, they did not say they are launching an official investigation. As for right now, the rumor seems to be false. --BirdKr (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is one of the first steps toward restoring users' faith in GameSpot, and an internal review of the incident and controversy is under way.ShadowUltra (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it seems like I'm trying to be "wordy-perfect" here, but isn't review different from investigation? The former being an evaluation, with the latter trying to find a conclusion to a situation/problem. --BirdKr (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys are waiting for, but it's been days since Gerstmann was fired and there's still nothing in the article about what happened. Considering how this sparked such huge discussions in the gaming press and among gaming enthusiasts in general, I would have expected someone to include this on Wikipedia by now. It seems like an event worthy of at least a sentence or two. Pele Merengue (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been, what, two , three weeks? There may have been a rash of articles the first week after his firing, but after both Gamespot and CNET stated their piece, the story died. It was newsworth, but not noteworthy w.r.t. to Gamespot; Gerstmann's aritlce includes the information per his firing, but again, that only concludes with Gamespot/CNET's remarks. If there is more, we can consider adding it later, but at the present there's no worthwhile point. --MASEM 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Gerstmann-gate needs to be included in the article

A lot of editors here are concerned about adding any information about Gerstmann's firing from gamespot into the article. This concern seems to be based on the fact that there is no reliable source to tell us why he was fired. However at this point why he was fired is not important. The fact is that the editorial integrity of a significant media outlet (CNET) has been called into question. This is important information for the article regardless of the reason Gerstmann was fired. It could turn out that he was fired for stealing office supplies. But even if that is the case the fact that gamespot.com's (and CNET's) image as a reliable media source is in question. A short summary of the original incident (his firing) needs to be included along with a nod to CNET's denial. But the real important section that needs to be included is a section calling attention to the fact that many people have doubts about gamespot.com's integrity. If these doubts are based on fact or not is not important. The fact that gamespot.com is "only" a video game review site, is not important. It is a media body and should be treated as such. Its intrgrity and percieved integrity in reporting and editorialzing is 100% noteworthy.The Goat (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One source regarding their "editorial integrity" could be a quote from one of the Gamespot staff member, possibly another editor, during their "Hotspot" session shortly after the controversy bloomed who mentioned "people questioning our editorial integrity" or something familiar. --BirdKr (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dissecting the sources --

1 Source 49 is nothing short of a blog entry, which is generally disallowed under WP:SPS. The following is equally disturbing and poses as more of a rumor than anything: "I will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Management claimed..."

2 Source 50 is an obvious blog entry, starting with a title that has the word "Rumor." This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill, and per WP:BLP, we need to accurately state only facts -- a non-negotiable policy on WP.

3 Source 51 is a legit source, but details regarding his firing were not revealed due to legalities. Now, if the OP can find a source outside of blogs and rumors to validate the original reason for leaving, that would be acceptable.

Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Seicer, Please reread my statement above. You are still debating the reason behind his firing. We are past that. It doesn't matter anymore. My point is regardless of the reason he was fired, the public image (perceived integrity) of gamespot.com has been significantly impacted by the event. The perceived integrity of a media outlet like gamespot.com and CNET certainly is worthy of being included in the article. If nobody posts a good counter argument to my theory on this in the next 24 hours, I will be adding a section to the article discussing the Gerstmann event and the public reaction.The Goat (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, after the incident was brought up at WP:WQA, I felt the need to comment. No discussion has been archived or "closed out," therefore it is still open for outside debate. Per WP:SPS and WP:BLP, the mentioned comments (1 and 2) are not acceptable because they are nothing more than rumor mills. Per Jimmy Wales, vios of BLP need to be removed as soon as possible, and this is non-negotable regardless of "consensus." We need reliable third-party sources. You have the burden to prove this. Empty threats of adding it based on perceived indifferences doesn't garner great discussions; if no consensus has been reached -- which has not occurred -- then it should be left open for continued discussion. Adding in the material will only result in further edit warring. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources, Seicer. [1] You can pick any of them, among the 169 stories. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)